经历新冠肺炎疫情一年，衣食住行都依靠数字服务，令中国的数字经济更快速增长，互联网巨头的中心地位更为明显。对于一个高速发展但监管一直模糊的新领域，国家市场监督管理总局在2020年11月10日发布《关于平台经济领域的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》，标志着互联网经济进入强监管时代。
《反垄断法》自2008年8月1日施行，迄今已有超过12年历史，继重点对原料药和汽车出台行业性反垄断指南后，反垄断领域2020年则定焦于互联网平台经济。国家市场监督管理总局局长张工指出，要防范部分企业凭借数据、技术、资本优势造成竞争失序风险，加强执法的同时，也要加快完善市场竞争规则。
重点条款
通商律师事务所合伙人黄凯律师告诉ALB，新颁布的《关于平台经济领域的反垄断指南（征求意见稿） 》表明了执法部门加强监管平台经济反垄断问题的决心，也为互联网企业做好反垄断合规提供了更清晰的方向和指引。
他介绍道：“《指南》在现有反垄断法的框架内，进一步细化和完善了互联网领域的反垄断规则。特别是相关市场界定、算法共谋、最惠国待遇、‘二选一’、大数据‘杀熟’ 、强制收集用户信息、轴辐协议、必需设施、协议控制（VIE）架构的经营者集中申报等问题，有比较明显的突破，值得企业重点关注。”
《指南》全文近九千字，主要章节包括垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位行为、经营者集中，以及滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争等，一共二十三条。条文清楚界定互联网平台等相关概念和构成垄断的行为，最广为谈论的是“二选一”和大数据“ 杀熟”，前者指合作商家只能入驻一家网络销售平台，后者指基于大数据，旧客户比新客户就同样的商品或服务承担更高的价格。
金杜律师事务所合伙人宁宣凤律师进一步向ALB详解新规。她指出，《指南》旨在约束平台经营者垄断市场的限制竞争行为，并特别点出两条须注意的条文。
她率先提到第一章第四条相关市场界定，并点评说：“界定相关商品和地域市场通常是反垄断分析的起点。在互联网行业，企业可能从事多种紧密相连的业务，不同业务之间的供给替代性很强，很难清晰界定出一个商品市场。此次《指南》也首次提出‘多边市场’的概念，并在第三款中强调反垄断机构在垄断协议的违法认定上可不明确界定相关市场，甚至在特定滥用市场支配地位案件中，可以不界定相关市场，直接认定平台经济领域经营者实施了垄断行为。这些内容还有待实践的检验。”
她同时提及第十五条列举的互联网平台“二选一”行为，并补充说：“ 这一条文被外界评价为弥补《反垄断法》在执法上的空白。‘二选一’在《反垄断法》的语境下，通常可归为限定交易或排他性交易。排他性交易有可能构成支配地位滥用行为，也有可能并不构成垄断行为，具体属于哪种情况，应依据个案案情来认定，需要证明其满足支配地位滥用行为的要件。因此，对于该条款的应用，也有待后续观察。”
其他常受诟病的市场行为，包括搭售或附加不合理交易条件、基于大数据和算法的差别待遇、低于成本销售、不公平价格等，《指南》都清楚列明构成的条件。宁宣凤律师指出，监管这些行为和维护市场竞争结构迫在眉睫，《指南》的出台顺应了趋势的要求。
安杰律师事务所合伙人詹昊律师形容，《指南》标志着反垄断执法机构对互联网领域的执法态度从“ 包容审慎”演变成“科学管理”。他与ALB分享《指南》三点值得关注之处：“一是规定了平台经济领域经营者——包括平台经营者、平台内经营者以及其他参与平台经济的经营者，将平台内经营者纳入监管框架；二是考虑了互联网企业尤其是平台经济的特点，对垄断协议与滥用行为的形式作出细化规定；三是明确了涉及VIE架构的互联网平台经营者集中，明确纳入经营者集中审查范围。”
其中有关VIE架构，《指南》订明经营者集中达到国务院规定的申报标准的，经营者应当事先向反垄断执法机构申报，未申报的不得实施集中。这一条文随即被首次引用，引起回响。
监管和鼓励并行
《指南》出台后，中国开始频频出击互联网巨头。2020年12月，市场监管总局针对阿里巴巴投资收购银泰商业股权、腾讯子公司阅文集团收购新丽传媒股权、丰巢收购中邮智递股权三起并购案，首次对VIE架构未依法申报经营者集中而进行处罚，并调查虎牙科技与斗鱼科技的合并。同月，阿里巴巴因涉嫌“二选一”被立案调查；网购平台京东、
天猫、唯品会也因不正当价格行为被处以50万元罚款。
尽管监管更严厉，受访律师认为在监管和鼓励双管齐下的环境下，《指南》未来会禆益平台经济的营商环境优化和发展。
黄凯律师表示，互联网巨头在短期内可能会合规压力骤增，面临更大的合规挑战，其中包括“二选一” 问题，也包括过去和未来的经营者集中申报问题，但其他中小型互联网企业在短期内可能会因此得到更大的发展空间。他相信，“从长期来看，只要在加强执法的同时，加快完善市场竞争规则，相信营商环境可以得以优化”。
詹昊律师持相同想法，表示执法机关整治互联网企业的垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位、未依法进行经营者集中申报等行为，有助营造良好的营商环境。他补充说：“《指南》虽加强对中国互联网经济的监管，但并不等同于限制其发展。国家层面仍然是鼓励数字经济大力发展，只是此种发展应该是有序的。”
深入认识互联网
面对中国加强互联网经济的反垄断监管，受访律师均指律师和企业的最佳应对方法为深入认识新法规，并建设反垄断合规制度。
宁宣凤律师提醒互联网企业：“ 互联网企业要充分重视《反垄断法》合规，公司高层要有紧迫感，有意识地在全公司推行反垄断法合规制度建设，对不同部门的雇员反复进行有针对性的反垄断合规培训。对于创新性的经营行为，在推行前要及时做反垄断法审查，以降低合规风险。”
詹昊律师对企业给予相似建议：要建立反垄断合规体系、加强有关培训，更积极应对可能到来的执法活动。黄凯律师则表示，《指南》实质上是对互联网平台公司合规经营的重要指导，从业者须重新理解监管部门针对互联网等新兴行业的反垄断监管思路，加强合规意识，建立、完善并落实合规体系，做好应对相关部门监管的准备。
至于法律同仁，詹昊律师说：“ 对于反垄断律师而言，要为互联网企业客户提供更专业的反垄断法律服务，需要律师不断加强对互联网行业知识的学习，在复杂的互联网平台经济中找准客户的风险所在。”他也坦言，目前能融合反垄断专业知识和互联网行业知识的律师为数不多。
黄凯律师则提到律师的分析和判断能力：“在对相关客户的经营模式以及商业决策是否合规做出判断时，律师需要依照《指南》进行更为细致且全面的分析。无论律师或企业，均可以借《指南》了解到执法重点及监管思路，并对可能的违法风险进行合理判断。”
全球聚焦互联网反垄断
不光是中国，数字经济在全球发展蓬勃，互联网巨头的崛起带来垄断隐忧，引来各地监管机构采取行动。去年在国外，欧盟透过出台《数字服务法》和《数字市场法》草案来订下开展业务的严格规则，法国对谷歌和亚马逊开出巨额罚单，美国也对脸书和谷歌提出反垄断诉讼。
反垄断也随之成为国内外法律界的重点领域之一，受访律师因此分享了同仁应注意的趋势和要点。
宁宣凤律师预计，随着数据成为一种现实资源，数据合规与反垄断合规相结合的态势会愈发明显，互联网行业将成为2021年全球，包括中国反垄断机构的执法重点，并另外指出健康领域也是重点。
她解释道：“由于疫情的影响，在原料药等医疗健康领域，药企间增加合作及互相并购也将成为趋势，可能会是全球经营者集中审查，或是反垄断执法重点执法领域。”再观国内，律师应注意今年有望完成《反垄断法》修法工作。该法已列入今年预安排的重点立法工作。
黄凯律师同样认为，今年中国和全球反垄断的立法、司法以及执法的力度不会放缓，并可能更加关注数字经济的反垄断问题。尤其在国内，中央政治局会议明确提出“强化反垄断和防止资本无序扩张”。他表示：“律师应当密切关注《反垄断法》的修改，跟进反垄断立法、司法以及执法的最新动向。”
詹昊律师也预见今年中国针对互联网企业的反垄断行政调查与相关诉讼纠纷将趋于高发态势。他提醒同仁：“反垄断律师应当高度关注中国与全球互联网经济反垄断联动动向，不断拓展前沿知识储备，包括对互联网平台特征、数字经济的模式、大数据的法律属性进行深入研究，为客户综合评估核心业务以及衍生业务的反垄断风险。”
Competition in the Crosshairs
As the coronavirus pandemic passes the one-year mark, technology has taken a central role in all aspects of our lives. This has led to faster growth of China’s digital economy. To better regulate the growth of this market, China published draft antitrust guidelines in November last year, and lawyers say strict scrutiny is to be expected.
The Anti-Monopoly Law was enacted in China some 12 years ago, in August 2008. Since then, the authorities have rolled out sector-specific anti-trust guidelines for industries like active pharmaceutical ingredients and auto-mobiles, and in 2020, their focus turned to the digital economy. Zhang Gong, head of the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), pointed out that the authorities had to prevent certain companies from upsetting the competitive balance with their advantages over data, technologies and capital. They also had to improve anti-trust rules faster while strengthening regulation.
Kevin Huang, partner at Commerce & Finance Law Offices, tells ALB that the new guidelines demonstrated the authorities’ determination to strengthen antitrust regulation on the platform economy industry and provided Internet companies with clearer direction to enforce antitrust compliance.
“Under the current Anti-Monopoly Law, the guidelines further specify and improve the antitrust laws in the Internet industry. Breakthroughs have been made on issues including market definition, algorithmic conspiracy, most favoured treatment, ‘either-or’ choice, big data discrimination, mandatory collection of user information, hub and spoke conspiracy, necessary facilities and filing requirements surrounding variable interest entity (VIE) structures, things that are noteworthy for companies,” Huang says.
The guidelines are almost 9,000 characters long and include 23 articles from chapters on monopoly agreements, abuse of market dominance, concentration of operators, as well as abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition. The articles clearly define what an Internet platform is and what constitutes monopolistic practices. The most discussed are the ‘either-or’ choice and big data discrimination. The former refers to the practice of requiring a seller to choose between two online marketplaces, while the latter refers to old customers paying higher prices than new customers for the same products and services due to big data discrimination.
Susan Ning, partner at King & Wood Mallesons, has further interpretations of the new guidelines. She points out that the guidelines are aimed at restricting the practices of online platform operators to limit competition in order to dominate the market. She especially highlights two noteworthy articles.
For starters, she points to Article 4 from the first chapter that concerns market definition. “Defining relevant products and markets is usually the starting point of antitrust analysis. In the Internet industry, companies may engage in various businesses that are intertwined, and these businesses can be substituted easily, therefore making it difficult to clearly define a commodity market. The guidelines also mention for the first time the concept of a multi-lateral market and emphasizes Article 3, that the antitrust regulators may deem definition of the market unnecessary when it is a case of monopoly BIG STORY
agreements or abuse of market dominance, and directly determine that the platform operators have applied monopolistic practices. We’re still waiting to see this article be put into practice,” Ning says.
She also notes Article 15 that mentions the requirement of choosing between two online platforms. “This article is seen as filling the gap in the Anti-Monopoly Law, and ‘either-or choice’ is referred as exclusive dealing. Exclusive dealing may constitute abuse of market dominance, and may not constitute monopolistic behaviour. This will need to be determined according to the case and evidence that proves the abuse of market dominance. Therefore, it remains to be seen how this article will be applied,” Ning says.
Other frequently criticized market behaviours include tie-in sales or imposing other unreasonable conditions and discrimination, big data discrimination, selling below cost and unfair pricing. The guidelines clearly lays out what constitutes these behaviours. Ning says regulating them has become an urgent matter, and the guidelines are a response to this.
Zhan Hao, managing partner at Anjie Law Firm, describes the guide-lines as a turning point of the antitrust regulators’ attitude towards regulating the Internet industry. He shares three noteworthy points from the guidelines.
“First, an operator in the platform economy is defined as a platform operator, an operator on the platform, and other operators that participate in the platform economy. And operators on the platform are put under the regulations,” says Hao.
“Secondly, the authorities took into consideration the characteristics of Internet companies and the platform economy to specify definitions of monopoly agreements and monopolistic behaviours. Third, the guidelines stipulate that concentrations of plat-form operators involving a VIE structure will also fall within the scope of the antitrust review.”
Regarding the VIE structure, the guidelines stipulate that when concentrations of operators reach a level that meets the State Council’s requirement, operators should file with the antitrust regulators. This requirement was then applied for the first time.
LONG-TERM BENEFITS
After the guidelines were released, Chinese regulators started to take on Internet giants.
In December 2020, SAMR imposed penalty on three companies, Alibaba, Tencent’s subsidiary China Literature and Hive Box regarding their acquisitions, the first time penalty was imposed on the grounds of failing the meet the filing requirement for concentration of platform operators involving VIE structure. SAMR also said it was investigating the merger of Huya and Douyu. In the same month, Alibaba was investigated for the alleged forcing of exclusive dealing, and online marketplaces such as JD.com, Tmall and VIPS were fined half a million RMB for unfair pricing.
Despite stricter regulation, experts believe the guidelines will optimize the business environment and benefit the industry’s development in the long run.
Huang says in the short term, Internet giants may face mounting pressure on compliance and greater legal challenges concerning their exclusive dealing and filing for concentrations before and later on, but smaller Internet companies will find greater room for development. He believes that “in the future, when market competition rules are being improved while regulations are being tightened, the business environment will be better.”
Zhan also believes that the business environment will get better when authorities clamp down on monopoly agreements, abuse of market dominance and failure to file for concentrations. “Although the guidelines are meant to tighten regulation on China’s digital economy, it doesn’t mean they limit its development. The country is still encouraging the development of digital economy, but this has to be orderly development,” he says.
TAKING IT SERIOUSLY
Experts point out that the best way for lawyers and companies to respond to China’s stricter antitrust regulation on the Internet sector is to understand the new guidelines and implement an antitrust compliance program.
Ning reminds the Internet companies that they need to take antitrust compliance seriously and the executives must take it as an urgent matter. “They should implement an antitrust compliance program in the company and carry out targeted antitrust training for employees from different functions. When it comes to innovative operation practices, they should conduct antitrust review repeatedly to minimize compli-ance risks,” she says.
Meanwhile, Huang says the guide-lines are important on compliant operations for Internet companies. Companies should refresh their under-standing of antitrust regulation and strengthen compliance awareness, design, improve and implement a compliance program and be prepared for regulation.
“Antitrust lawyers need to provide more professional legal services for the Internet companies. Lawyers need to keep learning about the Internet industry and identify risks for clients in the complicated platform economy industry,” Zhan says. He also feels that there are not many lawyers who are currently familiar with antitrust and the Internet industry.
Huang, on the other hand, mentions lawyers’ analytical and judgment skills. “When judging whether the client’s business model and decisions are law-abiding, lawyers need to conduct a more thorough and comprehensive analysis according to the guide-lines… Both lawyers and companies can take the guidelines as reference to understand the regulators’ focus and rationale to make the right call for potential legal risks,” he says.
UNFLINCHING FOCUS
The digital economy is booming not just in China. The rise of the Internet giants has brought about concerns of market dominance and caused regulators worldwide to take note. Last year, the EU introduced the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act to set strict requirements for carrying out business, France served Google and Amazon with hefty fines, and some U.S. states filed an antitrust suit against Facebook and Google.
Antitrust has then become a hot topic in the legal sector at home and abroad. Experts share what trends to keep an eye out for and what to take note of.
Ning predicts that as data becomes a valuable resource, the trend of data compliance and antitrust compliance crossing paths will be more notable. In 2021, the internet industry will be a key area of focus for antitrust regulators around the world. She also notes that the healthcare industry is another area of focus.
“Due to the pandemic, pharmaceutical companies are enhancing collab-oration and increasing M&A activities will become a trend. Healthcare sectors such as API could be an area of focus for the antitrust regulators worldwide,” she explains. Back in China, lawyers should note that the revision of the Anti-Monopoly Law is expected to be completed this year. This has been listed as a key task on the regulatory front this year.
Huang also believes that antitrust regulators in China and abroad will only continue to step up legislation and law enforcement, and remain focused on the antitrust issues in digital economy. In China, the Politburo was clear during its meeting that it would “strengthen anti-monopoly efforts and prevent the disorderly expansion of capital,” he says.
Zhan also expects to see more anti-trust investigations into and lawsuits against Internet companies in China. He reminds his peers that antitrust lawyers should closely monitor the antitrust development in the Internet industry at home and abroad, expand their knowledge, study the features of Internet platforms, digital economy and the legal aspects of big data in depth, to evaluate the antitrust risks of the client’s core and derivative businesses and help them prepare for antitrust challenges in the future.
To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.